Bernardo Kastrup
New
For example, you refer to the link between richness of experience and a broader informational space (and as someone who is partial to and sees promise in integrated information theory I agree). Now, it's possible that I'm not quite getting what you mean here but don't the elements I lay out above demonstrate exactly that? Information exchange is all about connectivity isn't it? And what the study seems to point to is that increased connectivity in the visual processing centres of the brain lead to richer, more vivid experience while decoupling of other information pathways results in a decreased sense of self, etc.
Further the power decreases were not spread out evenly and they map out relations there as well.
And don't we have to be pretty careful here to conclude that lower power throughout the brain necessarily indicates less power to specific processes. I don't know the answer to this, but the brain does a lot more than produce consciousness - what effects do these drugs possibly have on those other activity - in other words, is the power drop due to other processes going offline or working less hard? But alternatively, could these studies suggest that your premise is just incorrect? That richness of experience does is not a factor increased power but just a factor of the particular pattern of activity.
So to bring it home. I don't understand why you went out of your way to highlight the issues regarding cerebral blood flow, and ignore all the other findings, paticularly the ones related to how the informational relationships changed under LSD?
(and please note, when I say these questions are not the rhetorical I mean it. I'm not asserting you are wrong, it could easily be my understanding which is wrong, which is why I'm asking. Also I recognize that my partiality to IIT could be influencing this exchange in that while in that my understanding of how the brain generates human consciousness is not strict physicalism by some definitions and your argument may not be addressed at my understanding. I appreciate the dialogue!)
I guess you didn't understand my argument. I can only point back to my paper, where it is explained. Last try: my argument is entirely agnostic of the pattern of brain activity. Connectivity is a pattern.